Unexplained delay between arrest and preventive detention snaps the live and proximate link.

Nagaraj was detained as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order dated 23 May 2026.

He was arrested on 26 April 2026 and was involved in one case, Palani Taluk Police Station Crime No. 265 of 2026.

He challenged the detention order, arguing that the authority’s assertions about repeated heinous conduct and prejudice to public order lacked a basis, and that the delay in passing the order had severed the live and proximate link between the alleged conduct and the need for detention.

The State acknowledged the delay but argued that it had caused no prejudice.

1. Whether the detention order was vitiated because the authority’s assertions about the detenu’s conduct and its impact on public order lacked an adequate factual basis.

2. Whether the delay between the detenu’s arrest on 26 April 2026 and the detention order dated 23 May 2026 snapped the live and proximate link necessary to sustain preventive detention.

Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 provides the statutory basis for classifying a person as a “Goonda”.

Under the principle stated in Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, an unreasonable delay between relevant events and the passing of a detention order, if not satisfactorily explained, may cast doubt on the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and the purpose of detention; whether delay is unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The detenu had only one recorded case, yet the detention order stated that he was committing heinous crimes in public and acting prejudicially to public order; the Court considered those observations unsupported by the record and the order ipse dixit.

It also found that nearly one month elapsed between arrest and the detention order, and that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. Applying the principle in Sushanta Kumar Banik, the Court held that the live and proximate link had snapped, vitiating the detention.

It directed that Nagaraj be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with another case.